What the fuck is it with Americans and their "I need a gun to shoot intruders in my home" crap.
Because every night on the news, there is another story about yet another home invasion in my city, people raped, tortured, and often killed. Because given the recent election, I would think the rest of the world would like to know that the American government isn't the only ones with guns over here? That was the arguement my mother always fell back on when I was a kid and wondered why guns shouldn't be outlawed. As I have gotten older and more cynical of the our government, the more I tend to agree. We are a nation founded by citizens having guns to rout out a bad government, and therefore the founders wanted to insure future generations could follow suit if it were necessary.
No where else in the whole fucking world do people say shit like this.
Been to Africa lately? How about Iraq? Afganistan? Indonesia? Colombia?
Despite having said all of this, I absolutely wish this country could get rid of its guns and live happily ever after, but it isn't in its nature or future.
Just to point out, Fab25 is a FLASH plant now, not CPUs. Those are Fab30 in Dresden.
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
However, this is not necessarily the best solution for society as a whole. Particularly in countries with a national health service funded by general taxation, paying lots of money to drugs companies is not an efficient use of resources.
And please explain to me how funnelling billions of dollars into a government bureaucracy is an efficient use of resources? I think you are conveniently overlooking one of the most inefficient cogs in your system.
As for his spending record. Let's just say he HAS to either cut the deficet or get congress to incease the maximum legel deficit allowed to be more the 7.3 trillion dollars.
You mean increase the maximum debt, not deficit. Big difference.
but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.
You obviously didn't have as good a Government teacher in school as I did. He covered this, it was called Garland's Law #3 (I think it was #3):
The incumbant president shall receive his (her) party's nomination if he (she) asks for it.
Think about this for 30 seconds. If they ask for it and the party selects someone else, then the party has to go to the American public and say something along the lines of, "yeah, ummm, thanks for electing our guy four years ago, but ummm, you messed up. This time we got it right, yeah, we really did, elect this guy." Think they would then win???
Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws."
According to the constitution, you do not need both halves for an amendment. It can be done without Congress. That is the point people are making. The Congress can not pass a law without the President signing or vetoing it (ie, he has to be a part of the process), but the states can skip the Congress entirely (although despite what others have said, this has never happened successfully, at least I think others said it happened, but according to this it never has). Therefore, by your reasoning (you need both halves, therefore the Congress can amend the constitution) the President makes laws. This was the source of my original frustration. I completely agree with you, we are mostly arguing semantics here since Congress has drafted every amendment, but your statement I believe continues to be false in the strictest sense. (For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.) If you want to continue to hold to your position, I can understand why, but will have to respectfully disagree since the states have far more say in the amendment process than Congress (in my (sadly) not very humble opinion).
Sorry, my original post sounded quite snooty. Actually, when you have a problem with many factors, the Taguchi method of DOE (Design Of Experiment) can ease many headaches and let you focus on the factors that count the most more quickly. It is the preferred method of yield enhancement in the semiconductor world (where I come from and learned about it) where we had more factors than I could shake a stick at, and running them OFAT was out of the question (only 25 wafers/lot!). If you only have 2 or 3 factors, then running OFAT (or full factorial) is feasible, but I suspect most people want to look at more than just 2 or 3 factors. Check it out sometime, it was a life saver for me.
Anyhoo, my point is that racers will make ONE AND ONLY ONE modification between testing. Otherwise, how do you know what caused the resulting effect?
Never heard of Taguchi, have you? You are outlining the OFAT (One Factor at A Time) method of testing. There are numerous statistical methods for multiple factor testing at a time. It requires multiple runs, but it will also give you information about interactions between your factors.
Only posting anonymously because this is has gotten so rediculous....I am a new AC to the discussion.
I won't budge......You might as well save your breath though, you'll never convince me otherwise.
It must suck to be so close minded. What is the point in a discussion if you have already made up your mind? I guess your nickname should have been the first clue. Dude, you are so far off base it is amazing to me. The start of this was a true statement, the Congress does not ammend the constitution, just as the President doesn't set the budget. I assume you say that Congress makes the laws....oh what's the point, you are too closed minded to even consider the falacies in your stance. Thank goodness you aren't a Justice.
Question poised: or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely in a Roth IRA.
Ralph Nader responds: If the system is privatized, this tranquility will be replaced by anxiety, as we worry about whether we will be winners or losers in the system's roller-coaster ride on Wall Street.
What a load of crap! Where does the question say you have to then invest in the stock market? Sure he says it would most likely be a Roth IRA, but is that a bond fund? Is it an fixed annuity fund? Nader automatically assumes everyone will jump into the stock market and risk it all on a stock or two. Has he not heard of diversification? Does he not review the historic performance of the stock market and realize that it is unmatched? As long as you are diversified and in it for the long term (and we are talking about over 30 years here), there is zero evidence that you will lose or be outgained by any other investment strategy (simply pull up 15 year DJIA charts for any period, even include the last 15 years, and you will see fine returns).
Question: My husband works for a small business, about 20 people maximum, and the insurance the company offers not only would cost over 1/3 of his monthly income, but it would not cover our son due to his "pre-existing condition" (asthma). My question to you is, do you plan to make the limitations for assistance higher? Eliminate "pre-existing conditions," such as asthma? Make it to where agencies that provide assistance not just look at a monthly income, but look at the monthly outgoing?
Kerry's answer: First of all, my health care will expand health insurance to every child in America. I also believe that we must help out small businesses lower the cost of health insurance and my plan will do that by having the federal government pick up the cost of the most expensive health care costs and allow small businesses access to the same health care that members of Congress give themselves. My plan will cut health care costs by up to $1,000, making coverage more available and affordable for your family.
How does his plan cut the cost of coverage??? It doesn't, instead it spreads the cost out to everyone else, while introducing more government inefficiencies (and don't try and tell me the government does anything efficiently). That isn't cutting the cost, that is tranferring the cost.
I could never follow any of Bush's responses through to get my ire up, he wondered around so much dodging the questions....
Even if an incoming administration didn't appreciate this fact (and Kerry who sat on the intelligence committee no doubt does), tutors would get them up to speed quickly.
Also interesting that in 1994 he managed to attend approximately zero, this is following the first WTC bombing.
I understand your point vs. the grandparent post, but your suggestion that because he was a member of the committee doesn't seem to help since he didn't seem to participate. We don't know what his attendance record is for the closed door meetings, he won't release those (they are not public record).
From your quote of the article: The Cray XD1 compute subsystem is composed of 12 AMD Opteron(TM) 64-bit processors that run Linux and are organized as six 2-way SMPs to deliver 58 GFLOPs* per chassis.
Your comment: Wow - do the math: 696 GFLOPs per chassis. That's rather impressive.
To get the 696 GFLOPS you need to have 12 chassis (a fully loaded system), so it isn't 696 GFLOPS/chassis, but/system. Sorry, just wanted to point it out.
The 2 CPU have same clockrates....remember that 130nm-K8 uses only SOI technology, instead 90nm-K8 uses SOI + LowK + SS.
Further in the article you would find... (The 130nm chip we used was actually an Athlon 64 3800+ underclocked to 2.2GHz, for what it's worth.)
So yes, they took a chip and underclocked it. The differences in process you are talking about will only allow for the chip to run at higher clock speeds, not necessarily impact performance ratings (whatever they are calling it these days) at a given speed.
All CPUs from the same process/family are identical other than miniscule speed and thermal characteriistics.... It's because the company simply marks down the CPU to a lower rating.
Yes, they have the same maskset etc. Heck, different speed grades come off of the same wafer. However...these "miniscule speed and thermal characteristics" quickly add up when you have the number of transistors on a CPU, and QA knows what areas of the wafer are better than others, and bin the die accordingly. Believe me, AMD wants as high an ASP as they can manage, they will not mark down die simply to supply the low end.
The type of characteristics you're talking aboout are the small differences between any two, even identically rated, CPUs.
No, the types of differences I am talking about are the forefront of the device and integration engineers workday. They work their behinds off for incremental gains in Idsat. When a wafer comes out with a particularly "hot" chip on it, that lot is analyzed to death to figure out "what went so right."
So, what I have said that is untrue? TR took a chip known to perform better (according to AMD, and they should know) to compare against a slower speed grade, known to AMD to be not as fast. Why is this not an apples to oranges comparison? We are talking about only a ~20% difference.
This seems a poor comparison between the AMD CPUs. Given they have taken a 130 nm chip and underclocked it, that means the chip is capable of higher clock speeds and therefore has "hotter" (from a speed sense) transistors as we used to say at AMD (used to work there). Since the transistors can deliver more current when on (leading to the higher clock speeds), by definition (subthreshold slope is limited by physics to ~60 mV/dec of current) they will "leak" more in the off state than transistors that don't supply so much current (and therefore run slower). I wish they had had equally rated (by AMD) chips to remove this uncertainty, although everyone seems to be focusing on the difference between the Intel and AMD boxes (which opens up a world of concerns....is it the motherboard under load increasing its demand, they have different memory systems which could contribute when stressed, is the PCI-E bus not as efficient as the (assumed) AGP, etc.).
Are these switches opening and closing a circuit? It's hard to tell from the article.
Having now read the article, it doesn't look like it. They talk of clamping both ends of the beam and then vibrating it to generate the two states (I assume by amplitude of vibration). What isn't clear is how they are then "reading" the state of the beam. What really has me confused now is if they are dependant on the vibration...how can they retain a state without power to keep vibrating? If they were flipping a switch (in the same sense as a lightswitch, where the sparks are going to be a concern) I can see how they handle things. The article really does leave a lot to be desired in terms of technical information!
From the grandparent: Among the points they brought up was that mechanical switches are unreliable. Sparks can fly and generate enough force to destroy the switches.
From the parent: Consider the TI micro-mirror display chips. They are mechanical and seem to last quite a while, and a single failure creates a noticeable display flaw.
While I understand why you bring up these devices, this doesn't address the sparks concern in the grandparent post, only the mechanical reliability of continually flexing the material (how the mirrors work). The mirrors don't have an "open-closed" switching where you are opening and closing a circuit, which could cause the sparks mentioned in the grandparent. I haven't read the article, so I am not sure exactly how they plan to mitigate this.
Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?" So I have to ask, what's really more important?
I am in no way attempting to defend the current administration, but to address the above instance independently. What makes me upset about what Clinton did was that he (while holding the highest office in the land) committed perjury. Granted the scale of the offense he perjured himself about was miniscule, but he (in my mind) basically said he was above the law. My concern and outrage had more to do with the idea that he was basically telling everyone in America that taking an oath to tell the truth in court was not important and held no meaning.
Now, Bush is another story, and there are lots of things for me to get upset about him with....
It's about software monoculturism (is that a word?).
According to Webster's it isn't. There is monocultural, which is the adjective of what you are looking for, but personally I prefer the wording you used.
So how much are the democrats paying you to be a shill?
I doubt they have to. The big problem I see in America is that people don't realize the politicians are not there to try and help anyone but themselves (and personally, I see Mr. Kerry as a perfect example of this. The Clintons also a power hungry bunch. The Bush family for some reason doesn't strike me as nearly so power hungry, but still going to look out for #1. Cheney, definitely looking after his best interests, Edwards, do I even need to say anything?).
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck is it with Americans and their "I need a gun to shoot intruders in my home" crap.
Because every night on the news, there is another story about yet another home invasion in my city, people raped, tortured, and often killed. Because given the recent election, I would think the rest of the world would like to know that the American government isn't the only ones with guns over here? That was the arguement my mother always fell back on when I was a kid and wondered why guns shouldn't be outlawed. As I have gotten older and more cynical of the our government, the more I tend to agree. We are a nation founded by citizens having guns to rout out a bad government, and therefore the founders wanted to insure future generations could follow suit if it were necessary.
No where else in the whole fucking world do people say shit like this.
Been to Africa lately? How about Iraq? Afganistan? Indonesia? Colombia?
Despite having said all of this, I absolutely wish this country could get rid of its guns and live happily ever after, but it isn't in its nature or future.
His webserver as it gets slashdotted.
Many AMD chips are made in Austin, TX
Just to point out, Fab25 is a FLASH plant now, not CPUs. Those are Fab30 in Dresden.
However, this is not necessarily the best solution for society as a whole. Particularly in countries with a national health service funded by general taxation, paying lots of money to drugs companies is not an efficient use of resources.
And please explain to me how funnelling billions of dollars into a government bureaucracy is an efficient use of resources? I think you are conveniently overlooking one of the most inefficient cogs in your system.
...we can Slashdot them, too!
/. and gets "slashdotted" it can be called "HL2'ed!"
So does this bring another word into our lexicon? Now when someone posts their own server to
As for his spending record. Let's just say he HAS to either cut the deficet or get congress to incease the maximum legel deficit allowed to be more the 7.3 trillion dollars.
You mean increase the maximum debt, not deficit. Big difference.
but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.
You obviously didn't have as good a Government teacher in school as I did. He covered this, it was called Garland's Law #3 (I think it was #3):
The incumbant president shall receive his (her) party's nomination if he (she) asks for it.
Think about this for 30 seconds. If they ask for it and the party selects someone else, then the party has to go to the American public and say something along the lines of, "yeah, ummm, thanks for electing our guy four years ago, but ummm, you messed up. This time we got it right, yeah, we really did, elect this guy." Think they would then win???
and thus the slang for "Congress amends the constitution" should be ok.
This I can easily except. The beauty of slang, it removes all symantic problems!
Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws."
According to the constitution, you do not need both halves for an amendment. It can be done without Congress. That is the point people are making. The Congress can not pass a law without the President signing or vetoing it (ie, he has to be a part of the process), but the states can skip the Congress entirely (although despite what others have said, this has never happened successfully, at least I think others said it happened, but according to this it never has). Therefore, by your reasoning (you need both halves, therefore the Congress can amend the constitution) the President makes laws. This was the source of my original frustration. I completely agree with you, we are mostly arguing semantics here since Congress has drafted every amendment, but your statement I believe continues to be false in the strictest sense. (For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.) If you want to continue to hold to your position, I can understand why, but will have to respectfully disagree since the states have far more say in the amendment process than Congress (in my (sadly) not very humble opinion).
"I assume you say that Congress makes the laws" Yes, actually I would say that. Contrary to your point, I am quite open-minded.
But you don't say the President makes laws do you?
Sorry, my original post sounded quite snooty. Actually, when you have a problem with many factors, the Taguchi method of DOE (Design Of Experiment) can ease many headaches and let you focus on the factors that count the most more quickly. It is the preferred method of yield enhancement in the semiconductor world (where I come from and learned about it) where we had more factors than I could shake a stick at, and running them OFAT was out of the question (only 25 wafers/lot!). If you only have 2 or 3 factors, then running OFAT (or full factorial) is feasible, but I suspect most people want to look at more than just 2 or 3 factors. Check it out sometime, it was a life saver for me.
Anyhoo, my point is that racers will make ONE AND ONLY ONE modification between testing. Otherwise, how do you know what caused the resulting effect?
Never heard of Taguchi, have you? You are outlining the OFAT (One Factor at A Time) method of testing. There are numerous statistical methods for multiple factor testing at a time. It requires multiple runs, but it will also give you information about interactions between your factors.
I hate pushing the 'Submit' button instead of the 'Preview' button....
Only posting anonymously because this is has gotten so rediculous....I am a new AC to the discussion.
I won't budge......You might as well save your breath though, you'll never convince me otherwise.
It must suck to be so close minded. What is the point in a discussion if you have already made up your mind? I guess your nickname should have been the first clue. Dude, you are so far off base it is amazing to me. The start of this was a true statement, the Congress does not ammend the constitution, just as the President doesn't set the budget. I assume you say that Congress makes the laws....oh what's the point, you are too closed minded to even consider the falacies in your stance. Thank goodness you aren't a Justice.
Here are two things that really raised my ire:
Question poised:
or to allow me to no longer contribute to Social Security and use that extra income to invest myself for my retirement, most likely in a Roth IRA.
Ralph Nader responds:
If the system is privatized, this tranquility will be replaced by anxiety, as we worry about whether we will be winners or losers in the system's roller-coaster ride on Wall Street.
What a load of crap! Where does the question say you have to then invest in the stock market? Sure he says it would most likely be a Roth IRA, but is that a bond fund? Is it an fixed annuity fund? Nader automatically assumes everyone will jump into the stock market and risk it all on a stock or two. Has he not heard of diversification? Does he not review the historic performance of the stock market and realize that it is unmatched? As long as you are diversified and in it for the long term (and we are talking about over 30 years here), there is zero evidence that you will lose or be outgained by any other investment strategy (simply pull up 15 year DJIA charts for any period, even include the last 15 years, and you will see fine returns).
Question:
My husband works for a small business, about 20 people maximum, and the insurance the company offers not only would cost over 1/3 of his monthly income, but it would not cover our son due to his "pre-existing condition" (asthma). My question to you is, do you plan to make the limitations for assistance higher? Eliminate "pre-existing conditions," such as asthma? Make it to where agencies that provide assistance not just look at a monthly income, but look at the monthly outgoing?
Kerry's answer:
First of all, my health care will expand health insurance to every child in America. I also believe that we must help out small businesses lower the cost of health insurance and my plan will do that by having the federal government pick up the cost of the most expensive health care costs and allow small businesses access to the same health care that members of Congress give themselves. My plan will cut health care costs by up to $1,000, making coverage more available and affordable for your family.
How does his plan cut the cost of coverage??? It doesn't, instead it spreads the cost out to everyone else, while introducing more government inefficiencies (and don't try and tell me the government does anything efficiently). That isn't cutting the cost, that is tranferring the cost.
I could never follow any of Bush's responses through to get my ire up, he wondered around so much dodging the questions....
Kiss my karma goodbye:
Even if an incoming administration didn't appreciate this fact (and Kerry who sat on the intelligence committee no doubt does), tutors would get them up to speed quickly.
Better hope for those tutors:
During Kerry missed 38 of 49 public hearings during the eight years he served on the intelligence panel.
Also interesting that in 1994 he managed to attend approximately zero, this is following the first WTC bombing.
I understand your point vs. the grandparent post, but your suggestion that because he was a member of the committee doesn't seem to help since he didn't seem to participate. We don't know what his attendance record is for the closed door meetings, he won't release those (they are not public record).
From your quote of the article:
/system. Sorry, just wanted to point it out.
The Cray XD1 compute subsystem is composed of 12 AMD Opteron(TM) 64-bit processors that run Linux and are organized as six 2-way SMPs to deliver 58 GFLOPs* per chassis.
Your comment:
Wow - do the math: 696 GFLOPs per chassis. That's rather impressive.
To get the 696 GFLOPS you need to have 12 chassis (a fully loaded system), so it isn't 696 GFLOPS/chassis, but
The 2 CPU have same clockrates. ...remember that 130nm-K8 uses only SOI technology, instead 90nm-K8 uses SOI + LowK + SS.
Further in the article you would find...
(The 130nm chip we used was actually an Athlon 64 3800+ underclocked to 2.2GHz, for what it's worth.)
So yes, they took a chip and underclocked it. The differences in process you are talking about will only allow for the chip to run at higher clock speeds, not necessarily impact performance ratings (whatever they are calling it these days) at a given speed.
All CPUs from the same process/family are identical other than miniscule speed and thermal characteriistics.... It's because the company simply marks down the CPU to a lower rating.
Yes, they have the same maskset etc. Heck, different speed grades come off of the same wafer. However...these "miniscule speed and thermal characteristics" quickly add up when you have the number of transistors on a CPU, and QA knows what areas of the wafer are better than others, and bin the die accordingly. Believe me, AMD wants as high an ASP as they can manage, they will not mark down die simply to supply the low end.
The type of characteristics you're talking aboout are the small differences between any two, even identically rated, CPUs.
No, the types of differences I am talking about are the forefront of the device and integration engineers workday. They work their behinds off for incremental gains in Idsat. When a wafer comes out with a particularly "hot" chip on it, that lot is analyzed to death to figure out "what went so right."
So, what I have said that is untrue? TR took a chip known to perform better (according to AMD, and they should know) to compare against a slower speed grade, known to AMD to be not as fast. Why is this not an apples to oranges comparison? We are talking about only a ~20% difference.
This seems a poor comparison between the AMD CPUs. Given they have taken a 130 nm chip and underclocked it, that means the chip is capable of higher clock speeds and therefore has "hotter" (from a speed sense) transistors as we used to say at AMD (used to work there). Since the transistors can deliver more current when on (leading to the higher clock speeds), by definition (subthreshold slope is limited by physics to ~60 mV/dec of current) they will "leak" more in the off state than transistors that don't supply so much current (and therefore run slower). I wish they had had equally rated (by AMD) chips to remove this uncertainty, although everyone seems to be focusing on the difference between the Intel and AMD boxes (which opens up a world of concerns....is it the motherboard under load increasing its demand, they have different memory systems which could contribute when stressed, is the PCI-E bus not as efficient as the (assumed) AGP, etc.).
Are these switches opening and closing a circuit? It's hard to tell from the article.
Having now read the article, it doesn't look like it. They talk of clamping both ends of the beam and then vibrating it to generate the two states (I assume by amplitude of vibration). What isn't clear is how they are then "reading" the state of the beam. What really has me confused now is if they are dependant on the vibration...how can they retain a state without power to keep vibrating? If they were flipping a switch (in the same sense as a lightswitch, where the sparks are going to be a concern) I can see how they handle things. The article really does leave a lot to be desired in terms of technical information!
From the grandparent:
Among the points they brought up was that mechanical switches are unreliable. Sparks can fly and generate enough force to destroy the switches.
From the parent:
Consider the TI micro-mirror display chips. They are mechanical and seem to last quite a while, and a single failure creates a noticeable display flaw.
While I understand why you bring up these devices, this doesn't address the sparks concern in the grandparent post, only the mechanical reliability of continually flexing the material (how the mirrors work). The mirrors don't have an "open-closed" switching where you are opening and closing a circuit, which could cause the sparks mentioned in the grandparent. I haven't read the article, so I am not sure exactly how they plan to mitigate this.
Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?" So I have to ask, what's really more important?
I am in no way attempting to defend the current administration, but to address the above instance independently. What makes me upset about what Clinton did was that he (while holding the highest office in the land) committed perjury. Granted the scale of the offense he perjured himself about was miniscule, but he (in my mind) basically said he was above the law. My concern and outrage had more to do with the idea that he was basically telling everyone in America that taking an oath to tell the truth in court was not important and held no meaning.
Now, Bush is another story, and there are lots of things for me to get upset about him with....
It's about software monoculturism (is that a word?).
According to Webster's it isn't. There is monocultural, which is the adjective of what you are looking for, but personally I prefer the wording you used.
So how much are the democrats paying you to be a shill?
I doubt they have to. The big problem I see in America is that people don't realize the politicians are not there to try and help anyone but themselves (and personally, I see Mr. Kerry as a perfect example of this. The Clintons also a power hungry bunch. The Bush family for some reason doesn't strike me as nearly so power hungry, but still going to look out for #1. Cheney, definitely looking after his best interests, Edwards, do I even need to say anything?).